System for extracting relevant data from an intellectual property database

ABSTRACT

A method of extracting publications relevant to a reference entity, comprising the steps of generating an initial set of publications; associating the initial set with a database to generate a user-engageable display of at least one element relating to the at least one publication such that the at least one element is a required characteristic of the at least one publication in accordance with a predetermined standard of analysis; selecting at least a first element from the at least one element that represents a characteristic not present in the reference entity; yielding a result including publications in the initial set and excluding publications relating to the selected at least a first element in accordance with the predetermined standard of analysis.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

The present application claims priority from U.S. Provisional PatentApplication No. 60/670,735, filed Apr. 12, 2005, the entirety of thedisclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference into the presentapplication.

BACKGROUND

This invention pertains to the field of database searching, and moreparticularly, searching an intellectual property database.

It is commonly desired by those within the legal practice, including lawfirms, practitioners, patent attorneys and agents, search firms,technology transfer managers, corporations, corporate IntellectualProperty (IP) departments and the like, to extract relevant publicationsfrom an intellectual property database (e.g. information stored locallyon CD-ROM, stored on network storage devices through a local areanetwork, or stored on remote database systems through one or moredisparate network paths, e.g. the Internet) with a predeterminedexpectation of accuracy. Relevant publications as used herein refer topublications that fall within the scope of having pertinence to asearcher, in accordance with a predetermined standard of analysis.

Accuracy, herein, is defined as the ratio of relevant publicationsactually retrieved (by a search system) to the total number of relevantpublications within an initial set of publications. A search may beperformed to determine one's right to use a product or right to producea product, where the product may include an apparatus, composition,method, system, or a service (referred to as a reference entity,herein). As used herein, the term “infringement search” is meant toinclude any or all of a variety of terms used in the art to refer todatabase searching, including but not limited to “right to use search,”“right to produce search,” “clearance search,” “infringement search,”“freedom to operate,” etc. Efficiency and accuracy may be of essence.

Methods of extracting IP data from databases are known that utilizekeywords, annotations and publication summaries in retrievingpublications. Algorithms that evaluate term frequency or assign specificweight to specific terms for effectually returning publications ofgreater relevance are also known. Also, methods are known that comprisethe step of rephrasing portions of patent publications, such as the“Title,” “Abstract” or “Claims,” to conform to standard industrylexicography. Finally, search methods are known that match a set of“synonyms” to a specific search query to ensure that publications arenot ignored solely due to differences in semantics.

While such methods are useful, improved results may be realized bysearch methods that take into account the inherent nature ofinfringement searches, as contemplated by the present invention. Inconducting an infringement search for a reference entity, it isdifficult for the searcher to conceptualize the range of relevantpublications, due to the depth and complexity of the legal bounds ofpatent publications. Further, since an infringement search is generallyconducted in consideration of a physically-existing object, the scopeand variation of characteristics susceptible to infringement may belarge. Although known methods may be helpful in preventing the searcherfrom missing relevant publications in certain instances, such methodsonly marginally increase the speed and efficiency of an infringementsearch. Efficiency, as used herein, is defined as the ratio of relevantpublications retrieved to the total number of publications retrieved bya search system.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention overcomes the foregoing disadvantages by providingan improved system of extracting relevant intellectual property data. Inan exemplary embodiment, a system is described in which annotations,keywords, phrases, and/or symbols (collectively referred to asannotations, herein) represent elements or conditions taught, recited orimplied in patent publications; each represented element or condition isdeemed a necessary or essential characteristic, in accordance with apredetermined standard of analysis, for an object to infringe or to haverelevance. A primary user stores the annotations in an annotationdatabase and the annotations are arranged in hierarchal form withrespect to scope and variation.

A client, or end user, then conducts an infringement search of areference entity by inputting an initial set of publications, thencreating a search criterion by selecting annotations relating toelements not present in the reference entity. A search criterion, asused herein, refers to a set a parameters for retrieving search results.Final search results are then retrieved. The final search resultscomprise publications of the initial set that do not correlate toannotations selected by the client. Thus, relevant intellectual propertydata may be obtained through the elimination, or filtering, of at leasta set of annotated publications from a larger set of publications.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a functional block diagram of an embodiment of the currentinvention.

FIG. 1( a) is a functional block diagram illustrating a process of anembodiment of the current invention.

FIG. 1( b) is a functional block diagram illustrating a process of anembodiment of the current invention.

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of an embodiment of the current invention.

FIG. 3 is a schematic flow diagram of an embodiment of the currentinvention.

FIG. 4 is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the currentinvention.

FIG. 5 is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the currentinvention.

FIG. 6 is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the currentinvention.

FIG. 6( a) is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the currentinvention.

FIG. 6( b) is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of the currentembodiment

FIG. 7 is a screen view illustrating an embodiment of the currentinvention.

FIG. 8 is a schematic diagram illustrating an embodiment of the currentinvention.

FIG. 8( a) is a schematic diagram illustrating an embodiment of thecurrent invention.

FIG. 8( b) is a schematic diagram illustrating an embodiment of thecurrent invention.

FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram of an embodiment of the current invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Preferred embodiments and applications of the invention will now bedescribed. Other embodiments may be realized and structural or logicalchanges may be made to the disclosed embodiments without departing fromthe spirit or scope of the invention. Although the preferred embodimentsdisclosed herein have been particularly described as a system forextracting relevant intellectual property data in the form of patentsand patent publications, it should be readily apparent that theinvention may be embodied to implement any system in which similarproblems may occur. For illustrative purposes, the discussion herein mayrefer to U.S. patent publications. Those skilled in the art willappreciate the application of the invention to other jurisdictions (e.g.Europe, Canada or Japan), either alone or in combination, and to otherforms of information (e.g. trademarks, company structure, prosecutionand litigation history, technical publications or general publications).It may also be appreciated that the current invention may be combinedwith other systems and methods known in the art of electronic searchingand IP management.

I. Overview

As in FIG. 1, a first non-limiting embodiment of the current invention100 is illustratively depicted as a system comprising a first process102 and second process 104. The first process 102 comprises a process ofcreating an annotation database. The second process 104 comprises aprocess of conducting an infringement search. The first process 102 isdescribed as being performed by a primary user. The second process 104is described as being performed by an end user or client. While theinvention is herein described as two processes, one skilled in the artwill appreciate that it is within the scope of the invention, and it maybe preferred in certain instances, for both the first and second processto be performed simultaneously, and/or by a single user and/or at asingle location.

A. Creating an Annotation Database

The process of annotating a set of publications 102 will now bediscussed in accordance with the first embodiment of the currentinvention, as in FIG. 1( a). The annotation process comprises the stepsof establishing a standard of analysis 106; realizing the existence ofcommon elements 108; choosing annotations to represent common elements110; and organizing annotations with respect to relationship 112.

1. Establishing a Standard of Analysis

The first step of the annotation process 102 is the establishment of astandard of analysis 106 for determining infringement or, alternatively,relevance. In the case of patent publications, the standard of analysismay relate to a determination of which supporting information toconsider and to what extent. For example, in developing a standard ofanalysis specifically tailored to a highly visual patent art, it may bedeemed sufficient to detect infringement or relevance solely in view ofthe “Drawings” portion. For more complex patent arts, infringement mayrely substantially on the “Claims” portion or a combination of portions.At a level of criticality, the standard of analysis may warrantconsideration of any information potentially pertinent to theinterpretation of the patent publications, both intrinsic and extrinsic,including prosecution history, related art and technical publications.The standard of analysis may further include legal considerations, levelof expertise, degree of conservativeness, nature of the art, level ofregard for intellectual property within the industry and additionalbusiness factors including risk analysis. Finally, the standard ofanalysis may take into account the transient nature of any particularconsideration.

In an exemplary embodiment, the standard of analysis relatesspecifically to patent infringement. In the case of patent infringement,it is desirable that detection of elements be based on at least the“Claims” portion of patent publications. In accordance with currentpractice, patent publications may comprise at least one claim and eachclaim may be considered “independent” or “dependent” (including“multiple dependent claims”). Each “claim” of a patent may be consideredto consist of a set of limitations, each limitation contributing to theformation of a boundary as to the scope of the claimed invention.“Design” patent publications may be considered, in essence, to consistof a single claim comprising limitations depicted visually through“Drawings.”

2. Realizing the Existence of Common Elements

As in FIG. 1( b), the primary user, in consideration of thepredetermined standard of analysis, analyzes patent publications for thepurpose of detecting common elements 108. A common element, in someembodiments, refers to an element or concept that is implicitly orexplicitly recited in a patent publication that is deemed a necessarycondition for infringement of that patent publication in accordance witha predetermined standard of analysis.

Where, for example, the predetermined standard of analysis is patentinfringement under U.S. law, a common element is an element or conceptthat must be present in an accused infringing object (e.g. a product,method, apparatus, etc., that is being analyzed for infringement) inorder for that object to infringe the patent publication.

In other words, a common element of a patent publication is a sine quanon for infringement of the patent publication, in accordance with apredetermined standard of analysis. Likewise, an object that comprises acommon element (of a patent publication) may, but does not necessarily,infringe the patent publication.

In some embodiments, where the predetermined standard of analysis isrelated to “relevance,” then a common element of a publication is anelement or concept necessary for a reference entity to comprise for thereference entity to have relevance to the publication. Thus, a primaryuser would analyze a patent publication and detect those elements orconcepts that are deemed essential or necessary conditions.

In an exemplary embodiment, the detection of common elements mayinvolve, first, finding implicit or explicit limitations that are commonto each “claim” (or at least each “independent claim”) of a patentpublication 114, such a limitation herein referred to as a commonlimitation. The predetermined standard of analysis is then implementedto reduce a common limitation of a patent publication to a commonelement of the patent publication 116. Thus, the predetermined standardof analysis operates to modify the scope of a common limitation, definedby the language of the inventor, to realize a common element.

For example, a patent publication may comprise a set of claims, eachclaim reciting the limitation of “a composition comprising the elementargon.” Thus, “comprising the element argon” is a common limitation.However, in applying a predetermined standard of analysis, in view of,for example, legal considerations and conservativeness, the commonlimitation of “comprising argon” may be too narrow to function as acommon element. Thus, in creating a common element, the commonlimitation, “comprising argon” may be broadened to the concept of“comprising an inert gas.”

3. Choosing Annotations to Represent Common Elements

The primary user then chooses annotations to represent common elements110. An annotation may be further supported by an assigned definition.It is preferred that both the annotation and the assigned definitioncomprise broadly-accepted terminology, irrespective of the lexicographyof any specific patent publication. Due to the eliminatory nature of thepreferred embodiment of the current invention, there is no inherentrequirement to apply annotations where application would be futile,difficult or impossible.

a. Discretionary Nature of Annotation Application

Any individual publication may be assigned no annotations, oneannotation, or several annotations. The degree to which a publication isannotated may not necessarily affect the accuracy of the system. Inother words, the system may be considered eliminatory. Thus, the absenceof annotation of a publication results in the retrieval of thepublication in final search results rather than the elimination of thepublication from the final search results. Thus, in a preferredembodiment, the extent to which publications are annotated relatesneither to the complexity nor the extent of novelty of the publication,and is within the discretion of the primary user. The discretion of theprimary user may rely heavily on'both the predetermined standard ofanalysis and the availability of broadly-accepted terminology in aspecific art to represent a common element.

b. The Use of Logic Operators

In the course of the annotation process, it may be the case thatspecific publications seem not to comprise common elements or at leastnot to an extent to which annotations may easily be assigned. Forexample, in simplified terms, a publication comprises a set of twentyclaims. The first ten claims each recite at least a first limitation, A.The remaining ten claims each recite at least a second limitation, B,and do not recite limitation A. In response, a primary user may attemptto realize a common element so broad in scope as to encompass both A andB. However, such an attempt may be ineffectual, since the resultingcommon element may be substantially broader than the scope of anyparticular claim. Alternatively, the primary user may employ the use oflogic operators. Assume an appropriate annotation representing A is A′and an appropriate annotation for B is B′. In using logic operators, acommon element in this case may be represented by “A′ AND B′.” In otherwords, while neither A′, alone, nor B′, alone, represent a commonelement of the publication, a reference entity (i.e., the object inquestion of infringement) cannot infringe the publication if thereference entity comprises “both A′ and B′.” Further, logic operatorsmay be employed in more complex cases. For example, a publicationcomprises a set of twenty claims. The first ten claims recite at leastlimitations C and D. The final ten claims recite at least limitation E,but recite neither C nor D. In this case, it may be most effective torepresent the common element as “(C′ OR D′) AND E′,” where C′, D′ and E′represent annotations of limitations C, D and E, respectively.

4. Organizing Annotations With Respect to Relationship

Next, a hierarchy (or network or listing of annotations) may be createdfor organizing annotations with respect to scope or likeness or acombination thereof 112. It is preferable that annotations are arrangedat least with respect to scope. A first annotation may be embeddedwithin a second annotation, where the first annotation relates to acommon element that is a species of the common element of the secondannotation. It is also preferred that redundancy is minimized. In someembodiments, the primary user may utilize placeholder annotations.Placeholder annotations, herein, refer to annotations that do notcorrelate to common elements of any publication, but merely aid informing the structure of the hierarchy, thereby increasingfunctionality.

The assigned annotations and related publication identifications (e.g.serial numbers, publication numbers, patent numbers or the like) arestored as the annotation record. The annotation record may be stored asdata, preferably in a user-side database or storage module, hereinreferred to as the annotation/publication database 113.

B. Conducting the Infringement Search

FIG. 2 illustrates the second process 104 of the first non-limitingembodiment of the current invention. The second process 104 may beconsidered to be the actual performance of the infringement search. Thesearch is performed by an end user in view of a reference entity 202 orknown characteristic of a reference entity 202. The process ofconducting a clearance or infringement search generally comprises thesteps of compiling an initial set of publications 204 and creating asearch criterion 210.

1. Compiling an Initial Set

An initial set of publications 206 may be realized as input data andstored. In some embodiments, input data may be stored in a user-sidedatabase 208. The initial set of publications 206 may comprise a priorcompilation of publications from a known source. For example, theinitial set may comprise patent publications of designated classes orsub-classes in accordance with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO) classification system, data field searches, natural languagesearches, Boolean searches, searches conducted with known patentsearching software, prior final search results of the current inventionor any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the initial setincludes a set of publications encompassing the entire scope ofpublications that may conceivably lead to issues of infringement orrelevance in regards to a reference entity, limited by the discretion ofthe client or end user and reasonability. The initial set may comprisepublications not correlated with annotation of the annotation databasedescribed herein.

2. Creating a Search Criterion

An end user then refers to the annotation record 115 represented inhierarchy form. The end user creates a search criterion 210 by selectingannotations (relating to common elements) of the annotation record 115that are not present in relation to the reference entity 202 undergoingclearance. The search criterion 210 may be saved or stored in theuser-side database 208. At the completion of the creation of the searchcriterion, an automated function eliminates publications, from theinitial set 214, that relate to selected annotations of the searchcriterion. The remaining publications of the initial set 214 arereturned as final search results 216.

In some embodiments, final search results includes information such asadditional characteristics of publications of the initial set eitherexplicit or implicit. Such information includes any information knownfor assisting the end user 301 in accordance with a predeterminedstandard of analysis. In some embodiment, such information includesexcluded publications or excluded annotations distinguished from theretrieved publications or unselected annotations. In some embodiments,final search results comprises an opinion or report, derived from theset of returned publications of the initial set.

II. Exemplary Implementation

The following illustrates an exemplary implementation of a preferredembodiment of the current invention. As shown in FIG. 3, a system 300may be carried out via central processing units (CPUs), such computingbeing performed on a single CPU, split up over several CPUs (e.g.networked) or performed remotely via the Internet. It is within thescope of the current invention to incorporate any known manner ofinterfacing information such as browser-type technology andwindows-based formatting. “Pop-up” windows, referred to herein, includesany known form of windows, separate from a main window. The followingembodiment illustrates a subscription-type software service in which aprimary user 301 and an end user 304 are distinct entities.

The primary user 301 may access interface A 306 and access a remoteserver 308 via electronic network, internet, intranet or the like.Through the remote server, a patent publication database 310 may beaccessed. The database may comprise electronic publications of theUSPTO, European Patent Office, Japanese Patent Office or the like or anycombination thereof. Additionally, the patent publication database maycomprise any electronic collection of patent publications on magneticdisc, CD-ROM or the like or any combination thereof. Interface A 306 maycomprise a CPU, display module, user interfaces such as a keyboard andmouse, and a server. Through interface A, the primary user may access anannotation/publication database 312 for saving and storing data of theannotation record. The annotation/publication database may be accessibleremotely through electronic network, internet, intranet, CD-ROM,magnetic disc or the like for access by a remote user, namely an enduser or client.

The data of the annotation/publication database may be accessed by theend user 304 through interface B 316. Interface B 316 may also haveremote access to the patent publication database 310 via the remoteserver 308. Both the search criterion 318 and the final search results320, developed by the end user 304, may be stored or saved in a searchstorage database 322.

A. The Annotation Process

As shown in FIGS. 4-5, a first display module 350 of interface A 306 maycomprise a publication-viewing application, e.g. an application fordisplaying .pdf, .tiff, .rtf or the like. Additionally, a pop-up window352 may be applied for the primary user 301 to input annotations. Thepop-up window 352 may comprise a reference identification box 354,automatically displaying the currently-viewed publicationidentification, and a first annotation input box 356 for manual input ofannotations previously existent. A second annotation input box 358 maybe applied for manual input of new annotations.

The first annotation input box may comprise a “Search Hierarchy” button360, in which a primary user 301 may enter a query comprising a letter,portion of an annotation or annotation and be automatically directed toa graphical hierarchy representation 370 (as in FIG. 5) of the portionof the hierarchy containing the inputted query. From the graphicalhierarchy representation 370, annotations may be selected and added tothe set of annotations correlated with the viewed publication. Anannotation may also be typed in and added through the first annotationinput box 356 alone using an “Add” button 362.

The second annotation box 358 may be implemented for manual input of anew annotation. The primary user 301 may click on a “Place in hierarchy”button 364 for automatically linking to the graphical hierarchyrepresentation. The primary user may than select a genus annotation ofwhich the new annotation may belong. Topics may preferably beimplemented to break down the entire hierarchy into several broadclassifications. Thus, if an annotation is broader than any existinggenus, the annotation may be placed within a topic. The primary user maythen be prompted to input an annotation definition. An annotationdefinition may optionally be inputted.

As in FIG. 5, the graphical hierarchy representation (GHR) 370 maycomprise three windows or frames within a window. The first GHR window372 may automatically display the annotation definition corresponding toa selected annotation 374. The second GHR window 376 may display a macroview of general topics or broad annotations. The contents of the macroview may depend on at least the broadness, depth, or stage ofdevelopment of the hierarchy. The third GHR window 378 comprises adetailed hierarchy portion of the general topic selected by the primaryuser 301. Species annotations 380 may be embedded within respectivegenus annotations 382. Species annotations 380 of a specific genus maybe arranged in order of the number of publications 384 that each speciesannotation 380 yields. Alternatively (or in addition), annotations maybe listed in alphanumeric order.

The primary user 301 may select annotations from the third GHR window378. An “Options” button 386 may be implemented for supplying a set ofcommands, each to operate on a selected annotation. For example, anannotation may be “cut” from one location in the hierarchy andoptionally “pasted” in another. A “cut and paste” operation serves toreclassify each individual publication represented by the annotation tobe “cut” and “pasted.” Similarly, a selected annotation may be “copied”and placed within another genus or “dragged and dropped.” An annotationmay be “renamed.” An annotation may be redefined. An annotation may begiven a “quick key.” A “quick key” refers to a combination of keys thatwill automatically apply an annotation to a reference. “Quick keys” maybe most effective for annotations that are applied often in annotationdevelopment. An example may be applying “CTRL+A” (CTRL referring to theControl key of a standard QWERTY keyboard) for the annotation of“comprising an acidic substance.”

B. Conducting an Infringement Search

1. Compiling an Initial Set

FIG. 6 illustrates an electronic display 500 in accordance withInterface B 316. The end user 304 may access Interface B 316. InterfaceB may comprise a CPU, server and a display 500. The display 500 maycomprise a menu bar 502, first window 504, second window 506 and thirdwindow 508. The first window 504 may include an organization of initialsearch parameters. The end user 304 may use the first window 504 forcompiling an initial set 303 of publications. Specifically, the firstwindow 504 may include a first sub-window 510 for accessing saved setsof publications, labeled “Saved Sets.” The end user 304 may access finalsearch results of prior searches or a set of publications acquired byother known means as discussed herein. The end user 301 may inputmultiple sets.

The first window 504 may further comprise a second sub-window 512. Thesecond sub-window 512 may provide a means for accessing a knownelectronic publication database, such as the USPTO, European PatentOffice, Japanese Patent Office or the like or any combination thereof.The end user 304 may process and add known publication database queriesto the initial set 303. Optionally, the known publication database querymay be processed by clicking a “Process” button 514.

Clicking the “Process” button 514 may call a first pop-up window as inFIG. 6( a). The first pop-up window 550 may display the query 552 anddata information pertaining to the query, such as “Total Number of Hits”554. The first pop-up window 550 may also provide a button 556 for theend user 304 to view results, resulting in the appearance of a secondpop-up window (not shown) displaying resulting hits of the query andoptionally data information such as “Filing Date,” “Title,” “Inventor,”“Assignee” and the like. The end user 304 may delete individualpublications from the query, add all results 558 to the initial set 303or cancel the query 560 by clicking on respective buttons as shown.

As in FIG. 6, the third sub-window 511 may display a log, labeled“Search Log,” listing all queries and sets of publications inputted bythe end user 304. The end user 304 may view compiled publications of aquery by optionally clicking on a “View” button 516. Clicking on the“View” button 516 may result in the appearance of a third “pop-up”window (not shown) listing compiled resulting publications. As in thesecond pop-up window 550, resulting hits may be displayed in the thirdpop-up window along with publication data information. The end user 304may delete individual publications from the compilation. The end user304 may also delete entire queries or sets of publications from thethird sub-window 511. The initial set 303 may be saved for laterreference.

2. The Custom Hierarchy

As in FIG. 6, the second window 518 relates to the annotation record.Displayed may be a portion 520 of the annotation record arranged inhierarchy form. In some embodiments, an automated function may beemployed to eliminate from display annotations within the annotationrecord that do not correlate to publications of the specific initial setinputted by the end user 304. Such a function may operate by firstreading in the initial set 303 of publications as compiled by the enduser 304, and relating the initial set 303 to the annotation/publicationdatabase. Annotations, and placeholders in some embodiments, that relateto publications of the initial set are extracted from the annotationrecord in creating a custom hierarchy. If a genus annotation does notrelate to a publication of the initial set, but a species of the genusdoes relate, the genus annotation is listed, but serves as aplaceholder. Thus, annotations that do not relate to publications of theinitial set 303 are automatically eliminated in forming the customhierarchy. It is preferred that the annotations comprise the samerelative structure in the custom hierarchy as in the hierarchy of theannotation record. The end result is a custom hierarchy comprising onlyannotations that are relevant to publications of the initial set. Assuch, the end user or client is assured that time will not be wastedconsidering annotations that bear no effect on reducing the amount ofpublications of the initial set.

FIG. 6( b) illustrates an example of the creation of a custom hierarchy.A portion of the hierarchy of the annotation record 570 is shown. Anautomated function compares annotations of publications of an initialset 572 with the hierarchy of the annotation record 570. The result is acustom hierarchy 574 including annotations of publications of an initialset 572. The relative structure of annotations is maintained. Further,annotation “A1” 576 becomes a placeholder annotation.

3. Creating the Search Criterion

The custom hierarchy may be displayed in the second window 518 and maybe listed in tree form, each species embedded within the related genus.Each annotation listing may comprise a check box 522, hyperlink or tag.Each annotation may be followed by a numerical indicator 524 displayingthe total number of hits retrieved per annotation. It is preferred thatthe selecting of a genus annotation automatically results in selectingeach species annotation embedded within. The end user 301 mayalternatively opt to expand the genus annotation, revealing the nextgeneration of species embedded within it. The end user 301 may thenselect species annotations individually. Selecting the text of theannotation may result in the definition 526 of the annotation beingdisplayed. Definitions may be displayed in the third window 508. Anannotation definition 526 may include figures, boundaries, limitations,notes, examples or the like or any combination thereof, used to furtherdefine and explain the related annotation.

a. Discretionary Nature of the Search Criterion

The end user 301 may select annotations on a discretionary basis. Forexample, if the end user 301 is either unsure of whether a specificelement is present in conjunction with a reference entity 302 or unsureof the limits of the annotation, the end user 301 may opt not to selectthe annotation. Since selection of annotations relates to elimination ofannotations, an end user 301 not selecting an annotation results in theretrieval of the publications correlated to the unchecked annotations(unless the publications are otherwise eliminated).

At the completion of the annotation selection, the end user may click ona “Submit” button 528. The final search results 320 may then bedisplayed in a third display window 600 as shown in FIG. 7. The thirddisplay window 600 may comprise an application identification bar 602, amenu bar 604, a right window 606 and a left window 608. The right window606 may comprise a plurality of columns 610, each column 610 pertainingto a specific field. The fields may relate to publication datainformation such as reference number 612, title 614, assignee 616, datesof publication 618 and notes 620. The end user 301 may click on anindividual publication of the final search results and be able to viewthe images associated with the publication through an applicationcapable of reading the format of the publication.

The left window 608 may comprise a second set of fields 622. The secondset of fields may pertain to publication-specific fields relating to thepublication that the end user clicks on in the right window 606. Thesecond set of fields 622 may include reference number, query, feepayment status, filing date and a list of applied annotations.

An option (not shown) may be provided allowing an end user 301 to viewthe specific set of publications that correlate to specific annotationsof the custom hierarchy. Viewing sets of publications of annotations maybe advantageous in novelty-type searches or patentability-type searches.

If a publication of the initial set relates to more than one annotationin the custom hierarchy, the end user may eliminate the publication byselecting of any of several annotations of the custom hierarchy. Thus,the process of creating a search criterion may be quickened by anautomated function for updating or refreshing the custom hierarchy atspecific intervals. The automated refreshing process may eliminateannotations of the custom hierarchy that correspond to publicationsrelating to annotations previously selected by the end user. In someembodiments, the search criterion may be refreshed on the end user'scommand. In other embodiments, the search criterion may be refreshed atperiodic intervals or upon each annotation selection by the end user.

b. Accounting for Subsequent Design Variations of a Reference Entity

The search criterion may be saved and retrievable for future searches.For example, consider the case of conducting a clearance search for areference entity where it is conceivable that there may be a variationof one or more of the characteristics of the reference entity within theobject's developmental life cycle. A first search may be conducted for afirst version of the reference entity. The first search criterion maythen be saved. A second search may then be conducted with respect to asecond version of the reference entity, which may be a variation of thefirst version of the reference entity. For the second search, the enduser 301 may input the same initial set as in the first search or inputa new initial set. The end user 301 may then retrieve the searchcriterion of the first search and indicate that a variation is to takeplace. Such an indication may visually result in a change to the font orappearance of the selected annotations of the first search criterion andallow the end user 301 to override the selections of the first searchcriterion in accordance with the variation or variations incharacteristics of the reference entity. It is preferred thatmodifications of the search criterion are visually distinguishable fromthe original annotation selections. The end user 301 may then “submit”the modified criterion. The result, in final search results, is acompilation of publications that are relevant solely due to thevariation of the reference entity vis-à-vis the original referenceentity.

III. Additional Embodiments

A. Global Structure

As illustrated in FIG. 8, in an alternative embodiment, both theannotation process and the search process, as described herein, takesplace at a single location 702 by a single user. The single user may bean individual, corporate entity, law firm, search firm or the like. Insuch an embodiment, the annotation process may be continuous and occursimultaneously with the search process. Annotations are continuouslyadded, deleted, applied to publications or modified to further theefficiency and speed of the overall system. In this case, annotationsmay be specifically defined in accordance with the user's specificunderstanding. Further, in this case, annotations may be specificallydirected to technical areas of concern to the user.

As illustrated in FIG. 8( a), in another embodiment, the annotationprocess, as described herein, is shared between a primary user 704 andat least one client 706, preferably through means of a subscriptionservice. The primary user 704 may develop an annotation/publicationdatabase directed toward a broad technical field, while providingcomputer-implemented tools for the client to modify and further developthe annotation/publication database in accordance with the client'sspecific technical field. An advantage of this embodiment may be inovercoming diminishing returns associated with annotating a broadtechnical field. While benefits generally exist in developingannotations directed toward a broad technical field, a critical point inthe annotation process may exist where further development may beineffective as compared to further development directed toward aspecific technical field.

As illustrated in FIG. 8( b), in yet another embodiment, at least one ofeither the annotation process or the searching process is shared betweenat least one client 708 and at least one intermediate agent 710. In sucha case, the primary user 712 may develop an annotation database directedtoward a broad technical field. The agent 710 may further develop theannotation database directed toward a narrower technical field. Finally,the client 708 may develop the database directed towards the client'sspecific technical field. The agent 710 may also conduct infringementsearches on behalf of the client 708. Other structural configurationssharing processes of any of the embodiments of the current inventionamongst discrete parties may be realized without departing from thescope and spirit of the current invention.

In yet a further embodiment of the current invention, theannotation/publication database is developed to include patentpublications from multiple jurisdictions. While the standard of analysismay differ for various jurisdiction (e.g. EPO, JPO), it is preferredthat the annotation record is universal. Where the current invention isto be implemented for a client of another language, it is preferred thatonly the annotations be translated. Thus, a client of another language,conducting an infringement search, may eliminate a substantial portionof publications without undue translation of each individualpublication. Alternatively, a multi-language system may compriseindependent annotation/publication databases, the annotations of eachtranslated in multiple languages.

B. Specific Intellectual Property Portfolio Management

In yet a further embodiment of the present invention, anannotation/publication database 802, as described herein, may form thebasis of a management system 800 for a client's own portfolio of IPpublications. Assuming the annotation/publication database 802 to besufficiently developed with regards to the technical field of theclient, a second database, a suspect product database 804, may becreated where suspect products are annotated according to the sameannotation record as the annotation/publication database 802. The clientmay designate a first set of publications of interest. An automatedfunction may then continuously, periodically, or at command of theclient, compare annotations of products of the second database withannotations of the first set and alert the client 806 if a product fallswithin the scope of annotations of a patent publication of the firstset. Additional algorithms 808 may be applied to filter either productsor patent publications that are either scantily-annotated or otherwiselikely to create false alerts. Such a system may be beneficial for aclient who operates within a complex technical art or has a large IPportfolio.

While specific embodiments have been described above, it will beappreciated that the invention may be practiced otherwise than asdescribed. The descriptions above are intended to be illustrative andnot limiting. Thus it will be apparent to one skilled in the art thatmodifications may be made to the invention as described withoutdeparting from the scope of the claims set out below.

1-15. (canceled)
 16. A computer program product comprising acomputer-usable medium having a computer-readable program code embodiedtherein, the computer-readable program code adapted to be executed toimplement a method for identifying patent documents of interest in viewof a specific reference entity, the method comprising: displaying auser-engageable arrangement of a plurality of annotations that areassociated with a first plurality of document identifiers, each of thefirst plurality of document identifiers uniquely representing one of afirst plurality of patent documents; receiving a selection from a userof at least one of the plurality of annotations; excluding, from thefirst plurality of document identifiers, all document identifiersassociated with the at least one annotation selected by the user; andoutputting a resultant set of document identifiers that does not includeany of the excluded document identifiers, wherein each particular patentdocument of the first plurality of patent documents has at least onerequired characteristic satisfying conditions of a standard of analysissuch that each required characteristic is necessary for any referenceentity to embody in order to infringe the particular patent documentbased on a claims portion of the particular patent document, and whereinthe plurality of annotations include annotations that correspond torequired characteristics of the first plurality of patent documents, andwherein each particular document identifier is associated only withannotations corresponding to required characteristics of the patentdocument represented by the particular document identifier.
 17. Theprogram of claim 16, wherein the step of displaying a user-engageablearrangement of annotations further comprises displaying a genusannotation and a species annotation such that the species annotation ishierarchically embedded within the genus annotation.
 18. The program ofclaim 17, wherein the method further comprises: receiving a user requestto remove an annotation from the displayed user-engageable arrangementfrom a first location in the user-engageable arrangement and replace theannotation in a second location in the user-engageable arrangement,wherein the second location is different from the first location;removing the annotation from the first location; and replacing theannotation in the second location.
 19. The program of claim 16, whereinthe method further comprises displaying a definition associated with atleast one annotation of the displayed plurality of annotations.
 20. Theprogram of claim 16, wherein: the plurality of annotations are furtherassociated with a second plurality of document identifiers that are eachdifferent from the first plurality of document identifiers and that eachuniquely represent one of a second plurality of patent documents; foreach of the second plurality of document identifiers, a first annotationand a second annotation of the plurality of annotations represent, inconjunction, but not individually, a required characteristic of theparticular patent document represented by the document identifier,wherein, the required characteristic is evaluated, under a standard ofanalysis, to be necessary for any reference entity to embody in order toinfringe the particular patent document based on a claims portion of thepatent document; the method further comprises, for each of the secondplurality of document identifiers, excluding the document identifier if,and only if, both the first annotation and the second annotationconstitute user-selected annotations; and the resultant set ofidentifiers does not include any of the excluded document identifiersfrom the second plurality of document identifiers.
 21. The program ofclaim 16, wherein the method further comprises: receiving a primaryselection of one or more primary annotations from the displayedarrangement of annotations, resulting in primary selected annotationsand primary non-selected annotations, wherein the primary annotationscorrespond to one or more document identifiers from the first pluralityof document identifiers; removing, from the display, all non-selectedannotations that only correspond to the one or more documentidentifiers; and receiving a secondary selection of one or moresecondary annotations from the displayed arrangement of annotations. 22.The program of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises:generating a record of each annotation of the plurality of annotationscorrelated with a value indicating whether or not the annotationconstitutes a user-selected annotation; and storing the record as asearch criterion.
 23. The program of claim 22, wherein the methodfurther comprises: displaying a second user-engageable arrangement of asecond plurality of annotations; based on a user request, accessing thesearch criterion; comparing each annotation of the search criterion toeach annotation of the second plurality of annotations; and for eachannotation of the second user-engageable arrangement, if the particularannotation corresponds to a user-selected annotation, modifying thesecond arrangement by displaying the particular annotation as selected.24. A computer program product comprising a computer-usable mediumhaving a computer-readable program code embodied therein, thecomputer-readable program code adapted to be executed to implement amethod for identifying patent documents of interest in view of aspecific reference entity, the method comprising: receiving, from auser, an initial set of document identifiers that each uniquelyrepresent one of a first plurality of patent documents; accessing astored collection of document identifiers that each uniquely representone of a second plurality of patent documents, wherein the storedcollection of document identifiers are associated with a first pluralityof annotations, such that, for each document identifier of the storedcollection of document identifiers, only annotations of the firstplurality of annotations that correspond to a required characteristic ofthe patent document represented by the patent document identificationare associated with the patent document identification, wherein therequired characteristic is evaluated, under a standard of analysis, tobe necessary for any reference entity to embody in order to infringe thepatent document based on a claims portion of the patent document;comparing the initial set of document identifiers with the storedcollection of document identifiers; displaying a user-engageablearrangement of annotations including, from the first plurality ofannotations, only annotations that are each associated with at least onedocument identifier of the first plurality of document identifiers;receiving a selection from a user of at least one of the secondplurality of annotations; and outputting a resultant set of patentdocument identifications that, from the first plurality of patentdocument identifications, excludes all patent document identificationsassociated with the user-selected annotations.